[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFp+6iGr_WwhDTygc3Z7pmRJe704PAo_T_XLYvu-=f01cmnumA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:31:41 +0530
From: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
To: Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, robin.murphy@....com,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: joro@...tes.org, "robh+dt" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>,
architt@...eaurora.org,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/6] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe,
add/remove device
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> Hi Vivek,
>>
>> On 7/13/2017 10:43 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/13/2017 04:24 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 07/06, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1231,12 +1237,18 @@ static int arm_smmu_map(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>> static size_t arm_smmu_unmap(struct iommu_domain *domain, unsigned long iova,
>>>>> size_t size)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = to_smmu_domain(domain)->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>> + struct arm_smmu_domain *smmu_domain = to_smmu_domain(domain);
>>>>> + struct io_pgtable_ops *ops = smmu_domain->pgtbl_ops;
>>>>> + size_t ret;
>>>>> if (!ops)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> - return ops->unmap(ops, iova, size);
>>>>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(smmu_domain->smmu->dev);
>>>> Can these map/unmap ops be called from an atomic context? I seem
>>>> to recall that being a problem before.
>>>
>>> That's something which was dropped in the following patch merged in master:
>>> 523d7423e21b iommu/arm-smmu: Remove io-pgtable spinlock
>>>
>>> Looks like we don't need locks here anymore?
>>
>> Apart from the locking, wonder why a explicit pm_runtime is needed
>> from unmap. Somehow looks like some path in the master using that
>> should have enabled the pm ?
>
> Right, the master should have done a runtime_get(), and with
> device links the iommu will also resume.
>
> The master will call the unmap when it is attached to the iommu
> and therefore the iommu should be in resume state.
> We shouldn't have an unmap without the master attached anyways.
> Will investigate this further if we need the pm_runtime() calls
> around unmap or not.
My apologies. My email client didn't update the thread. So please ignore
this comment.
>
> Best regards
> Vivek
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sricharan
>>
>> --
>> "QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>
> --
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists